What works better: protected areas managed by the state, or areas conserved by Indigenous peoples and local communities? More than 50 different researchers came together to try to settle this debate. But their review of the scientific literature, published recently in Annual Reviews of Environment and Resources, concluded with what some might find to be an unsatisfactory answer: what works is super local, and context dependent. “In some ways, it’s a rather discouraging finding because if conservation effectiveness becomes so locally specific and so context dependent, it limits the purview of grand global statements,” says Dan Brockington, an anthropologist at the University of Sheffield, U.K., and a corresponding author of the study. “On the other hand, that’s an incredibly empowering finding for national, regional, and local conservation groups because it basically says, look, we do know what’s best about our context.” One reason the researchers set out to compare state-managed areas and those managed by Indigenous peoples and local communities is because of biodiversity conservation targets that loom close. Hundreds of countries, for instance, have agreed to the global “30 by 30” target aiming to conserve 30% of our planet’s land and water by 2030, which is only six years away. On one hand, governments are responding to the targets by declaring new state-governed protected areas or expanding existing ones, which may involve the eviction of communities. On the other hand, there’s growing criticism of this old conservation model, and a push to let Indigenous peoples and local communities manage…This article was originally published on Mongabay
The post Who protects nature better: The state or communities? It’s complicated appeared first on EnviroLink Network.